It could also be implied from extrapolation that banks & credit card companies are no different in peoples hardships due to the government business of using rules & regulations to make themselves above all else; just as are peoples hardships due to a Catholic Church sustaining it's pedophile priests pontification using Cannon Law to make themselves higher than all else & just as one mans law is another mans crime for the criminal justice system; making themselves out to be the higher than all else star bellied sneeches with stars upon thars practice of sustaining making money off of peoples hardships not always brought on upon themselves by blatant unlawful & order medical malpractice to control how the money will always flow into their pockets, being the not so natural human nature of politics & policies while painting a picture that it is just that.

No I think she is saying these are the factors of a financial crisis. You note she is saying that having home owners with no skin in the game is also an issue. But yes she is also talking about predatory practices of some lenders and the need to regulate financial products so that consumers are getting fair and reasonable terms and that states should have the ability to regulate interest rates. This all sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Especially since people defaulting on mortgages affects us all.

But no we should spend more time discussing whether or not she has a right to attend pow wows.

'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan

But it seemed articulated in such a way as to make it seem that she wasn't coming down too hard on the financial industry while at the same time absolving people from individual financial responsibility.

You guys know don't you that she used to be a republican? Then the party changed into the pathetic thing it is now. I can understand the old republicans, but not the new incarnation. How anyone with a bit of brain matter can support the party today is beyond me.

I find the assault on free thought disturbing,
I find the willingness to give it up frightening.

But yes she is also talking about predatory practices of some lenders and the need to regulate financial products so that consumers are getting fair and reasonable terms and that states should have the ability to regulate interest rates. This all sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Especially since people defaulting on mortgages affects us all.

What you call predatory loan practices I say it was people trying to keep with the Joneses.

'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan

How is it you missed actual specific practices that she says should be regulated?

'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan

No I think she is saying these are the factors of a financial crisis. You note she is saying that having home owners with no skin in the game is also an issue. But yes she is also talking about predatory practices of some lenders and the need to regulate financial products so that consumers are getting fair and reasonable terms and that states should have the ability to regulate interest rates. This all sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Especially since people defaulting on mortgages affects us all.

But no we should spend more time discussing whether or not she has a right to attend pow wows.

I think its sounds reasonable. Its not like she's advocating the violent overthrow of the government. I just think its bad policy and its not needed.

people trusted banks & credit card companies to only give people credit who were good risks and could afford it.....that had long been the case

somewhere along the way, banks & credit companies realized bad risks and people who could outright not afford it were bigger money makers.....laws & regulations were changed to benefit the lenders and creditors, and decreased protection for consumers

consumers still are slow to catch on to these facts.......

you can't cry for personal responsibility while completely absolving the predators for their role

when i apply for a mortgage, there is some assumption on my part, as a lay citizen, that the bank will only lend me an amount i can afford........that is far from the reality; they make far more money taking risk and on making truly ridiculous loans

And if you assume that your interest is not going to suddenly balloon after you have made 26 payments.

'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan

people trusted banks & credit card companies to only give people credit who were good risks and could afford it.....that had long been the case

somewhere along the way, banks & credit companies realized bad risks and people who could outright not afford it were bigger money makers.....laws & regulations were changed to benefit the lenders and creditors, and decreased protection for consumers

consumers still are slow to catch on to these facts.......

you can't cry for personal responsibility while completely absolving the predators for their role

when i apply for a mortgage, there is some assumption on my part, as a lay citizen, that the bank will only lend me an amount i can afford........that is far from the reality; they make far more money taking risk and on making truly ridiculous loans

That sure is an obtuse way of looking at things. Why should banks be responsible for determining how much mortgage payment a person can afford? Why is it not up to the individual applying for the loan to know what he/she can or can't afford. What about people reviewing their own personal finances so they don't over extend themselves. Isn't that what simple budgeting is all about? Or are we to let others decide how much money can be borrowed?

I'm sorry, but I don't buy into the predatory claim. Nobody held a gun to peoples heads forcing them to sign any paperwork that may or may not get them into future financial trouble. In the end it all boils down to personal financial responsibility.

That sure is an obtuse way of looking at things. Why should banks be responsible for determining how much mortgage payment a person can afford? Why is it not up to the individual applying for the loan to know what he/she can or can't afford. What about people reviewing their own personal finances so they don't over extend themselves. Isn't that what simple budgeting is all about? Or are we to let others decide how much money can be borrowed?

I'm sorry, but I don't buy into the predatory claim. Nobody held a gun to peoples heads forcing them to sign any paperwork that may or may not get them into future financial trouble. In the end it all boils down to personal financial responsibility.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

How about when the bank gives them a loan anyway and they default, they eat the money. No insurance, no default swaps and no bail-outs. Then the rest of us do not have to eat it when they **** up.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy into the predatory claim. Nobody held a gun to peoples heads forcing them to sign any paperwork that may or may not get them into future financial trouble. In the end it all boils down to personal financial responsibility.

However many were mislead on the actual terms and gave loans to people they knew were going to default. Then just passed that risk on to people, in the form of securities, that didn't understand what they were buying.

'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan

That sure is an obtuse way of looking at things. Why should banks be responsible for determining how much mortgage payment a person can afford? Why is it not up to the individual applying for the loan to know what he/she can or can't afford. What about people reviewing their own personal finances so they don't over extend themselves. Isn't that what simple budgeting is all about? Or are we to let others decide how much money can be borrowed?

I'm sorry, but I don't buy into the predatory claim. Nobody held a gun to peoples heads forcing them to sign any paperwork that may or may not get them into future financial trouble. In the end it all boils down to personal financial responsibility.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

not all - it generally wasn't in the banks best interest to give loans they knew were a failure from the get go up until recently

could one get in trouble in the past.....surely, one could get approved for a mortgage and not budget correctly and lose

banking laws, and credit laws, were changed over time, by a government working in collusion with the financial industry, to tilt the table in their favor (in the case of credit card companies, this has been taken to the extreme).......giving bad loans or credit become a money making enterprise, not a financial risk for the institutions......there's a reason credit card companies target college kids, and are more than willing to give multiple cards to young people with no income......they win big when people make mistakes.......

i know my payments out can't exceed my payments in......i know what we can afford to spend for our mortgage......we're within those means, barely.......my wife and i are educated, reasonably intelligent.......but the house buying process scared the hell out of me, and there was lots that went over my head......i worked on the assumption that the bank viewed us as a good risk, and wouldn't approve us for a loan they wouldn't get paid back on; i assumed that if we did things right, and watched what we spend, we'd be able to afford the payment......luckily, that has been the case......but the assumption that the bank won't tank on bad risk was a false one, and that's a relatively recent phenomena

But they didn't eat it, though did they? They had default swaps and sold the debt in the form of mortgage backed securities. Then when it all came crashing down, who ate it? The taxpayers.

'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan

not all - it generally wasn't in the banks best interest to give loans they knew were a failure from the get go up until recently

could one get in trouble in the past.....surely, one could get approved for a mortgage and not budget correctly and lose

banking laws, and credit laws, were changed over time, by a government working in collusion with the financial industry, to tilt the table in their favor (in the case of credit card companies, this has been taken to the extreme).......giving bad loans or credit become a money making enterprise, not a financial risk for the institutions......there's a reason credit card companies target college kids, and are more than willing to give multiple cards to young people with no income......they win big when people make mistakes.......

i know my payments out can't exceed my payments in......i know what we can afford to spend for our mortgage......we're within those means, barely.......my wife and i are educated, reasonably intelligent.......but the house buying process scared the hell out of me, and there was lots that went over my head......i worked on the assumption that the bank viewed us as a good risk, and wouldn't approve us for a loan they wouldn't get paid back on; i assumed that if we did things right, and watched what we spend, we'd be able to afford the payment......luckily, that has been the case......but the assumption that the bank won't tank on bad risk was a false one, and that's a relatively recent phenomena

You know all Elizabeth Warren is asking for is transparency in the lending process and that certain practices meant to deceive consumers, be outlawed. You would think she was asking to hang the bankers in a public square based on the way some are responding.

Not to mention we need to stop thinking that easy available credit equals prosperity. Which you would think would have more conservative support.

'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan

But you're right. They were bailed out. Capitalism for thee, but not for me. Which I guess is part of my point. The taxpayers SHOULDN'T have eaten it. If its paternalistic to assume that borrowers don't know what they're doing, its even worse for the government to bail out creditors who get into trouble. Plenty of blame to go around.

But you're right. They were bailed out. Capitalism for thee, but not for me. Which I guess is part of my point. The taxpayers SHOULDN'T have eaten it. If its paternalistic to assume that borrowers don't know what they're doing, its even worse for the government to bail out creditors who get into trouble. Plenty of blame to go around.

How is regulating banks and demanding transparency in the lending process equal paternalism?

'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan

However many were mislead on the actual terms and gave loans to people they knew were going to default. Then just passed that risk on to people, in the form of securities, that didn't understand what they were buying.

I'll guess you have to define what you mean by mislead?

Every loan I have done...I knew what the payment was, I knew the length of the loan, I knew the total loan amount and I knew what the interest rate was. I also knew that If I didn't agree to pay back the loan within the terms outlined in the agreement that my credit rating would be screwed.

Look I know it is a hard concept for you to grasp. But the world does not begin and end with you and your circumstances and experiences are not universal.

'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan

not all - it generally wasn't in the banks best interest to give loans they knew were a failure from the get go up until recently

could one get in trouble in the past.....surely, one could get approved for a mortgage and not budget correctly and lose

banking laws, and credit laws, were changed over time, by a government working in collusion with the financial industry, to tilt the table in their favor (in the case of credit card companies, this has been taken to the extreme).......giving bad loans or credit become a money making enterprise, not a financial risk for the institutions......there's a reason credit card companies target college kids, and are more than willing to give multiple cards to young people with no income......they win big when people make mistakes.......

i know my payments out can't exceed my payments in......i know what we can afford to spend for our mortgage......we're within those means, barely.......my wife and i are educated, reasonably intelligent.......but the house buying process scared the hell out of me, and there was lots that went over my head......i worked on the assumption that the bank viewed us as a good risk, and wouldn't approve us for a loan they wouldn't get paid back on; i assumed that if we did things right, and watched what we spend, we'd be able to afford the payment......luckily, that has been the case......but the assumption that the bank won't tank on bad risk was a false one, and that's a relatively recent phenomena

I would counter with who cares what the banks or credit card interests are? Everywhere you go in this world and everything you buy...someone else is interested in getting your money. That is why it is up to the individual to look out for their own interests. Not rely on the bank...at least in my opinion.

True story...

Back in January of 2000 my wife and I went to the bank to apply for a construction loan to build our new house that summer. After the bank reviewed our credit rating and financials they determined that we were "eligible" for a loan amount almost twice the amount we wanted to borrow. I told them no thanks. They continued to tell me how I could get more money for fancier upgrades in the house I was planning to build. I told them no thanks. My wife and I already had an amount budgeted for that we thought we could afford and we also budgeted for the possibility of one of us losing our jobs and still being able to make the mortgage payment and pay our other bills.

After the house was completed and the loan was converted to a regular mortgage loan, the bank then tried to talk me into doing an ARM and how great it would be becuase 3 years down the road mortgage rates would probably lower than the interest rate on the ARM. Once again we declined because it seemed to risky. We opted for the fixed rate instead.

Fast foward to December 2011...My wife became ill and bed ridden for 6 months straight. During the course of that time she lost her job (apparently for being ill too long and not making it into work) and all of sudden we didn't have that second income coming in anymore. Lucky for us we budgeted for that scenario. Cars had been paid for for 3 years, no credit card debt and only a mortgage payment and miscellaneous utility, phone bills etc.

Moral of the story...If I had listened to my bank...We would have been f***ed and would have ended up in foreclosure. Personal responsibility.

So why are so dead against laws that demand that banks be transparent when selling people loans?

'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan

I think "mislead" is pretty simple. It's 2005 and I'm in the mortgage generation business. Any warm body will do, poor credit or not. I can take someone whose credit is terrible, lie to them and convince them it's just fine, you can buy this house no problem. You have to understand the entire mortgage process at the time was devoted to selling mortgages to pass on to investors, no one was looking to hang on to these PsOS. So getting people to buy was essential to the process.

Now as a consumer owning a home is a dream most people have. And you have a lender telling you it's all good, just sign here. Were these people gullible, sure. Were the lenders misleading, sure (to both the home buyer and the mortgage investor) . They had no problem bundling these crap mortgages with not so crap mortgages and selling them to other gullible people. In the end this process benefited no one, the home owner got screwed, the banks got semi-screwed and the investors got screwed. If this is the type of mortgage market you think is beneficial or desirable I'm got several bridges I'd like you to look at. Trust me you can afford them.

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith